ClinicalTrials.gg
TerminatedNCT02773498MicrospermUpdated Jan 5, 2024

Comparison of Medical Results of Testicular Sperm Extraction by Conventional Surgery and Microsurgical Track

An interventional study of conventional TESE and Micro TESE in Azoospermia, sponsored by University Hospital, Toulouse. Terminated at 5 sites in France. Open to male participants aged 18 Years to 50 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-01-05.

Sponsored by University Hospital, Toulouse · Not applicable, Interventional, and Supportive care

Why this study was terminated
procedure is too demanding
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
50
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 50 Years
Sex
Male
01

Study summary

To compare mobile sperm extraction rate between microTESE and conventional TESE in 18-50 years-old men with non obstructive azoospermia.

Read the detailed description

About one in ten couples cannot have children without medical assistance. Male factors for infertility are identified in half cases with 10% azoospermia, non-obstructive in most cases. Up to date, testis surgical sperm retrieval for use in ICSI-IVF is the only possibility for those men to have children with their own sperm. Several options are available for surgically retrieving sperm from testis: During conventional testicular sperm extraction (cTESE), the testis is exposed through a small incision, then 1 or more biopsies are randomly made. Up to date, cTESE is considered as the gold-standard for sperm extraction in this population.

However, the success of surgical sperm extraction concerns a man out of two having cTESE for non-obstructive azoospermia.

On the other hand, Schlegel showed in 1997 that cTESE induces a significative loss of testicular tissue with possible impact on male endocrine balance with occurence of hematomas, inflammatory reshuffles and ischaemic lesions, compromising some regions in the testicular parenchyme. Another option for surgical sperm extraction is micro-surgery called microTESE (or µTESE). It consists in examining the testicular parenchyme under a high-power microscope (up to 25 magnification), screening for white opaque tubules with higher diameter which indicates possible active spermatogenesis. The benefits of µTESE are: (1) a better identification of sites of sperm production in the testis, (2) a better preservation of testicular vasculature decreasing the risk of postoperative hematoma or tissue ischemia and (3) excision of 3 to 10 times less tissue.

Nevertheless, no randomized studies have compared both techniques to validate such an assumption. In 2014, the results of a meta-analysis performed by Deruyver showed that, among the 7 original articles comparing cTESE to µTESE, 3 were retrospective studies and the remaining 4 prospective studies were not randomized.

It is highly unlikely that this better outcome is related to patient selection. Nevertheless, the relatively small number of studies comparing both methods makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions This study is based on the hypothesis that µTESE is a superior technique than cTESE with a difference of 20% like observed in Deruyver's meta-analysis.

The principal objective is to compare motile sperm extraction rate between μTESE and cTESE in 18-50 years-old men with NOA.

02

Conditions studied

  • Azoospermia

Browse trials for

03

In context

Azoospermia

59 studies on the registry are indexed under Azoospermia; 17 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 50 is below the median of 57 across 32 interventional studies indexed under Azoospermia.

Browse Azoospermia studies →

Lead sponsor

University Hospital, Toulouse is the lead sponsor of 807 studies on the registry; 209 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 50 Years
Sexes eligible
Male
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • 2 consecutive spermograms (with ±3 months interval) confirming absence of sperm (azoospermia)
  • diagnosis of non-obstructive azoospermia on the basis of a complete history, physical examination, endocrine profile, ultrasound and chromosomal analysis

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • History of previous testicular surgery, except orchiopexy for undescended testis.
  • Monochordy
  • Ultrasound revealed testicular nodule
  • Y chromosome microdeletions type AZFa and b.
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Supportive care
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Participant)
Enrollment
50 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    conventional TESE

    Conventional multiple TESE is performed under general or locoregional anesthesia. Through a small vertical incision in the median scrotal raphe, the skin, dartos muscle, and tunica vaginalis are opened to expose the tunica albuginea. The tunica albuginea is ordinarily incised for about 4 mm at the medium region of the testis. A similar biopsy will be systematically performed in the contralateral testis. The biopsy is analyzed by the biologist in the theatre in order to precise if sufficient spermatozoa is retrieved.

    Procedure: conventional TESE

  • Experimental
    micro TESE

    Microdissection TESE is also performed under general or locoregional anesthesia. After the tunica albuginea is opened widely along the antiepididymal border, direct examination of the testicular parenchyma is performed under the operating microscope. An attempt is made to identify individual seminiferous tubules that are larger, more opaque and whiter than other tubules in the testicular parenchyma, which are considered to contain spermatozoa. The extracted tubules are analyzed by the biologist in the theatre. The procedure is terminated when sperm are retrieved or further biopsy is thought likely to jeopardize the blood supply of the testis. If all tubules are seen to have an identical morphological appearance, at least three samples (upper, middle, and lower) are obtained. A similar microTESE will be systematically performed in the contralateral testis

    Procedure: Micro TESE

Interventions

  • Procedureconventional TESE

    usual procedure for sperm extraction

    Also known as: conventional surgery

  • ProcedureMicro TESE

    procedure of extraction is performed under the operating microscope

    Also known as: Microdissection surgery

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. sperm extraction

    positivity (presence, coded 1) or negativity (absence, coded 0) of the sperm extraction, based on possibility of having at least 1 mobile sperm

    Time frame: time of surgery

07

Study locations

5 sites
  • University Hospital
    Bordeaux, 33 000, France
  • University Hospital
    Lille, 59037, France
  • University Hospital
    Paris, 75015, France
  • University Hospital
    Rouen, 76031, France
  • University Hospital
    Toulouse, 31 059, France
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Tsujimura A, Matsumiya K, Miyagawa Y, Tohda A, Miura H, Nishimura K, Koga M, Takeyama M, Fujioka H, Okuyama A. Conventional multiple or microdissection testicular sperm extraction: a comparative study. Hum Reprod. 2002 Nov;17(11):2924-9. doi: 10.1093/humrep/17.11.2924. PubMed 12407050 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reached

Ran from Apr 2017 to primary completion in Jan 2021, 44 months.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
May 13, 2016
First posted
May 16, 2016
StartActual
Apr 26, 2017
Primary completionActual
Jan 15, 2021
CompletionActual
Dec 27, 2023
Last update
Jan 5, 2024
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jan 5, 2024, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT02773498
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
May 16, 2016
Start date
Apr 26, 2017
Primary completion
Jan 15, 2021
Completion
Dec 27, 2023
Last update
Jan 5, 2024

Study contacts

Eric Huyghe, MD, PhD
principal investigator · U H Toulouse

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is terminated, as verified in Jan 2024. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion